Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 421–455 | Cite as

Inequality-Adjusted Happiness in Nations Egalitarianism and Utilitarianism Married in a New Index of Societal Performance

Article

Abstract

According to the utilitarian creed, the quality of a society should be judged using the degree of happiness of its members, the best society being the one that provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Following the egalitarian principle, the quality of a society should rather be judged by the disparity in happiness among citizens, a society being better if differences in happiness are smaller. Performance on these standards can be measured using cross-national surveys, where degree of happiness is measured using the mean response to a question about happiness and disparity expressed as the standard deviation. In this paper we marry these measures together in an index of ‘Inequality-Adjusted Happiness’ (IAH) that gives equal weight to either criterion. It is a linear combination of the mean happiness value and the standard deviation and it is expressed as a number on a 0–100 scale. We applied this index to 90 nations for the 1990s and observed large and systematic differences, IAH being higher in rich, free and well-governed countries. We also considered the trend over time for 14 rich countries and found that IAH has increased over the last 30 years.

Keywords

social inequality happiness utilitarianism egalitarianism Inequality-Adjusted Happiness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cantril, H. 1965‘The Pattern of Human Concerns’Rutgers University pressNew Brunswick, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Diener, E., Seligman, M.E.P. 2004‘Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being’Psychological Science in the Public Interest5131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dijkstra, G. 2000‘A larger pie through a fair share? Gender equality and economic performance’, Institute of Social Studies, Working paper no. 315’The HagueThe NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  4. Estes, R. 1984‘The Social Progress of Nations’PreagerNew York, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Hicks, H.A.: 1997, ‘The inequality-adjusted human development index: A constructive proposal’, World Development 25, pp. 1283–1298.Google Scholar
  6. Kalmijn, W.M.: 2004, ‘IAH Calculator, Excel Programme for Calculating Inequality-Adjusted Happiness’, Available for download from World Database of Happiness, section ‘Distributional Findings’ www2.eur.nl/fsw.research/happiness.Google Scholar
  7. Kalmijn, W.M., Veenhoven, R. 2005‘Measuring inequality of happiness in nations’In search for proper statistics, Journal of Happiness Studies6357396Google Scholar
  8. Karantnycky, A., et al. (eds.): 2000, `Freedom in the World 1994--2000; The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, (Freedom House, New York, USA). www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2000.Google Scholar
  9. Kaufman, D., Kraay A. and Mastruzzi M., 2003, `Government matters III. Governance indicators for 1996--2002', World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3106.Google Scholar
  10. Ouweneel, P. 2002‘Social security and wellbeing of the unemployed in 42 nations’Journal of Happiness Studies3167192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ott, J. 2005a‘Level and inequality of happiness in nations. Does greater happiness of a greater number imply greater inequality in happiness?’Journal of Happiness Studies6397420Google Scholar
  12. UNDP: 2000, ‘Human Development Report’, 1998 UNDP (United Nations Development Program).Google Scholar
  13. Veenhoven, R.: 1997, ‘Progrès dans la Compréhension du Bonheur (Advances in Understanding Happiness)’, Revue Québécoise de Psychologie 18, pp. 29–74 (English version available on www.eur.nl/fsw/research/veenhoven).Google Scholar
  14. Veenhoven, R. 2000Well-being in the welfare state: Level not higher, distribution not more equitable’Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis291125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Veenhoven, R. 2000b

    ‘Freedom and happiness: a comparative study in 44 nations in the early 1990s’

    Diener, E.Suh, E.M. eds. ‘Culture and Subjective Wellbeing’MIT pressCambridge, MA, USA2572580262 041820
    Google Scholar
  16. Veenhoven R.: 2003a, ‘Equality-adjusted happiness in nations’, Paper Presented at the conference of the International Society for Quality of life Studies (ISQOLS) Frankfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
  17. Veenhoven, R.: 2003b, ‘Equality-adjusted happiness in 61 nations in the 1990s; How well nations combine high level and small difference in happiness’, World Database of Happiness (www.eur.nl/fsw/research/happiness), Happiness in Nations, Rank Report 2003–4.Google Scholar
  18. Veenhoven, R., 2004a, ‘Inequality-adjusted happiness in 90 nations 1990--2000’, World Database of Happiness, Rank Report 2004-4e. Available at: www.worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl.Google Scholar
  19. Veenhoven, R. 2004b

    Happiness as a public policy aim; The greatest happiness principle

    Linley, A.Joseph, S. eds. Positive Psychology in PracticeWileyUSA658678
    Google Scholar
  20. Veenhoven, R. 2004c

    Veiligheid en geluk (Security and happiness)’

    Muller, E.R. eds. VeiligheidKluwerAlphen aan de Rijn, Netherlands153188
    Google Scholar
  21. Veenhoven, R. 2005a‘Return of inequality in modern society? Test by dispersion of life-satisfaction across time and nations’Journal of Happiness Studies6457487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ‘World Database of Happiness; Continuous Register of Scientific Research on Subjective Enjoyment of Life’ (Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands) www.worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl.Google Scholar
  23. WHO: 2001, The World Health Report 2000, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations